Talk:Codes

From CFD-Wiki

Revision as of 09:22, 7 June 2007

I added a short note at the top of this page about limiting the length of the code descriptions - this is the result of a discussion in the wiki forum late last year - and I added a link to the copyright page to hopefully head off any more submissions of copyrighted material. I haven't started to look to hard at the individual pages yet - I'll start that later this week. Finally, I have removed all of the links to nonexistent pages in the free solvers section. I'm not sure how that looks. Any opinions? --Jasond 15:48, 6 June 2007 (MDT)

It looks great I think. It is very good that someone works on the code section. It is one of the most frequented sections. About the description of the codes. What I think is most important is that we never accept any advertisements in these descriptions. Everything should be verifiable and objective truths. Hence, just writing that a code is accurate and uses state-of-the-art models and numerics is not good. Describing which models and methods that are used should be okay though, as long as adjectives like "good", "accurate", "best" etc. are used very sparingly. About the copyright issue. We must of course ensure that we don't break any copyrights. However, I don't think that companies will have any problems with using their descriptions of their codes, on the opposite, that is probably what they want. Some descriptions have also been written by the code companies themselves. For example, the Gridgen description was written by John Chawner and Rick Matus, two of the top people in Pointwise. It is really not that good that companies themselves write these decriptions since that has a tendency to always produce advertising material. Pointwise have been very good at avoiding advertisements and unverifiable adjectives though. --Jola 03:22, 7 June 2007 (MDT)